Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Articles
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Zirconium
Translucent Zirc. Cantilevers?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Patrick Coon" data-source="post: 248318" data-attributes="member: 11366"><p>Uh-oh, here comes the science class. . .</p><p></p><p>Yes, many companies (ours especially) have perpetuated the flexural or biaxial flexural strengths of ceramics as being what is most important. But in reality, it is fracture toughness that we really need to pay attention to. From Wikipedia: "In <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science" target="_blank"><u>materials science</u></a>, <strong>fracture toughness</strong> is a property which describes the ability of a material containing a crack to resist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture" target="_blank"><u>fracture</u></a>, and is one of the most important properties of any material for many design applications."</p><p></p><p>Link: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_toughness" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_toughness</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here are a couple excerpt from the ISO Standard as well.</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]25678[/ATTACH]</p><p> [ATTACH=full]25677[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]25676[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>When classifying dental ceramics, because LD and ZrO2 are both delivered in a form other than "powder, paste, or aerosols" they are classified as Type II ceramics. We then classify them further by their recommended clinical indications as in Table 1. e.max falls in Class 4 (looks like it could be Class 5, but. . .) and Zenostar MT would be a Class 5.</p><p></p><p>Table A.1 shows recommended Fracture toughness for these classes. While these are not required to be met for the ISO standard, they are highly recommended and we follow them. This is why though e.max could be rated as a Type II, Class 5 dental ceramic due to it's Biaxial Flexural Strength of 500 MPa, because it only has a fracture toughness of ~2.75 we classify it as a Type II, Class 3. Zenostar MT has a fracture toughness ~3.3 and we classify it as Type II, Class 4.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Patrick Coon, post: 248318, member: 11366"] Uh-oh, here comes the science class. . . Yes, many companies (ours especially) have perpetuated the flexural or biaxial flexural strengths of ceramics as being what is most important. But in reality, it is fracture toughness that we really need to pay attention to. From Wikipedia: "In [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science'][U]materials science[/U][/URL], [B]fracture toughness[/B] is a property which describes the ability of a material containing a crack to resist [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture'][U]fracture[/U][/URL], and is one of the most important properties of any material for many design applications." Link: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_toughness[/URL] Here are a couple excerpt from the ISO Standard as well. [ATTACH=full]25678[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]25677[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]25676[/ATTACH] When classifying dental ceramics, because LD and ZrO2 are both delivered in a form other than "powder, paste, or aerosols" they are classified as Type II ceramics. We then classify them further by their recommended clinical indications as in Table 1. e.max falls in Class 4 (looks like it could be Class 5, but. . .) and Zenostar MT would be a Class 5. Table A.1 shows recommended Fracture toughness for these classes. While these are not required to be met for the ISO standard, they are highly recommended and we follow them. This is why though e.max could be rated as a Type II, Class 5 dental ceramic due to it's Biaxial Flexural Strength of 500 MPa, because it only has a fracture toughness of ~2.75 we classify it as a Type II, Class 3. Zenostar MT has a fracture toughness ~3.3 and we classify it as Type II, Class 4. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who makes the popular shade guide?
Post reply
Forums
Lab talk, the good, the bad, and the ugly
Zirconium
Translucent Zirc. Cantilevers?
Top
Bottom